We can imagine the ability of man to shape out for himself an idea of some
awful Power, some mighty First Cause, which created and ordered the universe,
and controlled and shaped its destinies. Looking around upon creation, he might,
perhaps, without any severe intellectual effort, attain to the thought of a Creator.
This conception once realised, he might in due time come to believe that the
Creator could be pleased or angered by the doings of His creatures; and that the
anger of One so powerful would be something to dread and avoid. But the idea
of this grand and terrible Creator sending from Heaven His own Son to take
upon Himself humanity, and thereby save the creature from the just wrath it had
provoked, and the dread retribution it had deserved,—an idea, so glorious and
consoling, could never, we believe, have been grasped by the loftiest human
intellect, unless aided by a revelation from above.
The exact relation of Zarathustrianism to Christianity it is somewhat difficult to
define, because a cloud of doubt and uncertainty hangs over the compilation of
the later portions of the Zendavesta. While the great antiquity of the Gâthas
cannot be disputed, while there is clear evidence that they contain much of the
original teaching of Zarathustra,—teaching nobler and more exalted than that of
his followers,—it seems not less certain that the doctrines of the Resurrection
and the Future Life were borrowed from the Hebrews. What then is left to justify
a comparison with Christianity? The keynote of its scheme is intellectual pride;
that of the Christian religion, spiritual abasement. The former urges on its
disciples the necessity of good thoughts, words, and deeds in order to please
Ahura-Mazda; the latter, as a proof of faith in the mission of its Founder. The
former teaches an excellent code of morals, so far as relates to the individual; the
latter lays down one golden rule, “Do unto others as thou wouldest they should
do unto thee.” The former enforces the law of self-control; the latter of self-
renunciation. It is impossible to pretend that Magianism shows the same insight
into man’s wants, failings, passions, temptations, as Christianity shows; or
provides a system so capable of adaptation to every age, and rank, and character.
We see no reason to doubt the authenticity and antiquity of the Zendavesta; but it
is somewhat surprising that scholars who make haste to accept it as genuine,
should show so much scepticism in reference to the Christian Scriptures. Surely,
as regards the latter, the evidence of genuineness is infinitely stronger than as
regards the former. We know that they were implicitly accepted by men who
lived almost in the very time of those who recorded them; on the other hand, of
Zarathustra and his contemporaries or successors we know absolutely nothing.
Some authorities represent him to have flourished as early as 2200 B.C.; others as